A White Paper on NIST's Omissions, Distortions, and Fraud

Editor's Note: In recent years, various members of the AE911Truth team have been working on a white paper titled “Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports.” Last month they finally completed the document. Its 25 concise points offer the most convincing proof that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the September 11, 2001, destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings were unscientific and fraudulent. The authors of "The 25 Points" designed the document to provide material that would compel the convening of a grand jury. Whether or not a grand jury is ever impaneled in any jurisdiction, though, readers of this white paper have the duty and privilege of acting as a virtual grand jury in all jurisdictions. After weighing the evidence meticulously laid out in "The 25 Points," readers can, by their resulting actions, help determine whether there will one day be a new, fully funded, truly independent, wholly transparent, and unimpeachably honest investigation of 9/11.

Areas of Specific Concern in the NIST WTC Reports

Below is a series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself – including its lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross - should be investigated.

Editor’s Note: The "The Science of 9/11 Truth” symposium at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga drew over 300 attendees and the support of many University faculty. Journalist Perla Trevizo provided an unbiased and accurate report of the event for the Times Free Press. We applaud Trevizo and the Times Free Press for covering this important news story in a fair and balanced manner, and we encourage other mainstream news outlets to follow their lead.

An audience of over 300 looks on as University faculty and technical experts discuss the science behind the destruction of the three WTC high-rises

Questions should be asked about the science behind the falling of the World Trade Center buildings 10 years ago, panelists agreed Tuesday night.

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga hosted the event, "The Science of 9/11," which began with a moment of silence for the families who lost loved ones.

The discussion "is an opportunity to illustrate the application of the scientific method to a real life event that most Americans remember exactly where they were," said UTC professor of anthropology Lyn Miles, one of the event's coordinators.

Editor’s Note: For more information about Tony Rooke’s court case and to find out how you can get involved in future efforts, send Tony an email. You can also listen to Tony’s radio interview on 9/11 Free Fall.

In an act of civil disobedience, Tony Rooke refused to pay a £130 TV license fee, alleging that the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks. Facing a judge Monday, Rooke was not convicted and did not have to pay the fine.

Rooke, a documentary maker who made his protest against the BBC in Horsham Magistrates’ Court in West Sussex, claims the BBC reported that World Trade Center 7 collapsed “due to an office fire, which, even the NIST Report says, fell at free-fall speed for eight floors in 2.5 seconds. That is absolutely impossible without a controlled demolition being involved.”

Now on iTunes, Hulu, Amazon, Flixter and Rotten Tomatoes:

9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out

Let Millions of People Know Just a Few Clicks!

Update: Great news! 9/11 Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out is also listed on IMDb.com, the #1 movie site in the world! Click here to visit our page on IMDb and write a review about this compelling documentary.

Part 12: Signal Detection Theory

Editor’s Note: Frances Shure, M.A., L.P.C., has performed an in-depth analysis addressing a key issue of our time: “Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11?” The resulting essay, being presented here as a series, is a synthesis of both academic research and clinical observations.

In answering the question in the title of this essay, the two October segments — Part 10: Terror Management Theory, and Part 11: Systems Justification Theory — examined, respectively, how the fear of our own death, and the need to feel good about the cultural system in which we live, can create resistance to the evidence indicating that the official story about 9/11 is a lie. Research shows that even though the educational efforts of 9/11 skeptics may be resisted, there is a delayed impact upon the listener, resulting in later attitude shifts in favor of the facts about 9/11.

We continue Ms. Shure's analysis in November with Part 12: Signal Detection Theory, which reports on whether or not people perceive information amid external and internal distractions, and how this perception may effect their receptivity to the educational efforts of 9/11 skeptics.

The study of how acutely individuals discriminate when making decisions, including psychological factors that bias those decisions, has resulted in the Signal Detection Theory.1

Nearly all human decisions are made in an environment of uncertainty. All of the stimuli, both external and internal, that create this uncertainty are called “noise.” To perceive reality accurately, we must be able to detect a “signal” amid the distracting noise. The more noise there is, the harder it is to detect the signal.

Example: You are looking for a person (signal) in a crowded room. If there are 100 people (external noise) in the room, your likelihood of spotting her is much greater than if there are 1,000 people (more external noise) in the room. If you are exhausted (internal noise) or you view the person as disagreeable (internal noise), you will have a harder time finding her.

How does this theory apply to why people are silent, or worse, about the information provided to them by 9/11 skeptics?

Let's assume you're a believer in the official 9/11 story. You meet a friend at a crowded party. The music is loud. Over the din, he tells you he thinks 9/11 was a false flag operation. He pulls his smart phone from his pocket and shows you World Trade Center Building 7 falling into its own footprint. He tells you that 2.25 seconds of this collapse (eight floors’ worth) was at free-fall acceleration, and that this can only be explained if explosives cut through the steel columns. You like and respect this friend, so you are open to his signal. But can you hear it clearly enough to make a decision about reality?